Replies

Of course it is, and some of that is necessary. A lot of Greek words, especially verbs, require more English words to render the equivalent Greek words. I think I have copied this our before, but here we go again:

Where the grammar is ambiguous or whether it is capable of being literally translated in a variety of ways, in most cases a translator must make as much a theological as a grammatical decision. There are many places where this kind of interpretive interaction with the original text is unavoidable; and every translator, regardless of his commitment to a particular translation philosophy understands this.

This does not mean, however, that all translations are equally interpretive. Generally speaking, the formal equivalence translator intrudes his interpretive opinions only where the necessity of making grammatical decisions forces him to do so. By comparison, the dynamic equivalence translator tends to be relatively unrestrained in his theologizing. What the formal equivalence translator does only as a matter of necessity, the dynamic equivalence translator often does as a matter of choice.

(snip)
The more that the concern of the translator shifts from formal linguistic correspondence between text and translation to produce 'equivalent effect' in the mind of the modern reader, the more necessarily interpretive translation becomes. As Nida acknowledges, 'The translator is often inclined to be more interpretive on the basis of such a formula [i. e., dynamic equivalence] than if he attempts to stay closer to the actual wording of the original.

Martin, Robert P. "Accuracy of Translation: The Primary Criterion in Evaluating Bible Versions with special reference to the New international Version" Banner of Truth Trust, Carlisle, PA (1997) pp. 42,43

I have to say, the NIV doesn't come out very good in this scholarly publication. It is definitely not recommended as a study Bible for the serious reader.

It is probably unwise to use them as pulpit Bibles or as pew Bibles, because doing so they are invested with the aura of the church.

The NIV is not worthy of becoming the standard version of the English-speaking world. Its accuracy is suspect in too many ways.

ibid. p. 70

What you save them with is what you save them to, eh, Els?

A lot of Greek words, especially verbs, require more English words to render the equivalent Greek words.

Then they should be 'translated' the same way each time.

If they aren't; SOMEONE along the way is making a judgment call.

It is definitely not recommended as a study Bible for the serious reader.

But; is it adequate for the True Scotsman?